How do we curtail gun violence?

[Nosmo King]

Gun owners have watched for four decades as our Rights have been eroded in the name of "safety" and nothing has improved. At some point maybe trying the idea of enforcing the THOUSANDS of existing laws might be an idea before adding new ones.

Gun owners understand that there is a problem with gun violence. We also realize that very rarely is it legal gun owners who are the ones at fault in these incidents. How about we start by putting criminals where they belong.... IN JAIL (or the ground) rather than continuing to allow them to roam the streets? Think that might help?

Any "Free" society must accept that a certain level of violence in inevitable. It's an unpleasant truth but that's part of Freedom. There is an incredibly long tradition of gun ownership here in the United States and that's not going away without a fight; whether it's purely political or spills over into physical combat as well.

And in cases where previously law abiding citizens take a semi automatic to a school, I guess the resulting carnage is the price we must pay to do nothing to stop that act. I wonder why that previously law abiding citizen thought that a semi automatic was a wise choice to begin with?

And it serves as a convenient rationalization to claim that law abiding citizens are not the problem until indeed they are. Adam Lanza serves as a case in point, as does John Hinckley.

So, your suggestion is to blame the instrument of their evil as opposed to the evil that possessed them. Typical lib attitude....no one is ever accountable for their actions.

If indeed guns are sweet benign objects no more harmful than a moving van packed with ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel or a paper weight or a manhole cover, fine. We can then agree that it is the user that poses the problem.

In that case, when universal back ground checks are suggested, why are they dismissed out of hand? Because they are not 100% effective? Neither are speed limits, but certainly limiting speed saves lives.

Every suggestion to curb gun violence is rejected by gun lovers because 1) they are not the panacea to the problem or 2) they are regarded as an infringement of rights.

Unless some gun lover can offer a solution, we must them assume that death by gun shot, gun violence on our streets and mass shootings in our schools is just the price of "freedom" for a gun lover.

 

[PratchettFan]

And in cases where previously law abiding citizens take a semi automatic to a school, I guess the resulting carnage is the price we must pay to do nothing to stop that act. I wonder why that previously law abiding citizen thought that a semi automatic was a wise choice to begin with?

And it serves as a convenient rationalization to claim that law abiding citizens are not the problem until indeed they are. Adam Lanza serves as a case in point, as does John Hinckley.

So, your suggestion is to blame the instrument of their evil as opposed to the evil that possessed them. Typical lib attitude....no one is ever accountable for their actions.

If indeed guns are sweet benign objects no more harmful than a moving van packed with ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel or a paper weight or a manhole cover, fine. We can then agree that it is the user that poses the problem.

In that case, when universal back ground checks are suggested, why are they dismissed out of hand? Because they are not 100% effective? Neither are speed limits, but certainly limiting speed saves lives.

Every suggestion to curb gun violence is rejected by gun lovers because 1) they are not the panacea to the problem or 2) they are regarded as an infringement of rights.

Unless some gun lover can offer a solution, we must them assume that death by gun shot, gun violence on our streets and mass shootings in our schools is just the price of "freedom" for a gun lover.

It is you who wish to curtail my rights. Why is it me who needs to come up with the solution?

 

[Nosmo King]

So, your suggestion is to blame the instrument of their evil as opposed to the evil that possessed them. Typical lib attitude....no one is ever accountable for their actions.

If indeed guns are sweet benign objects no more harmful than a moving van packed with ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel or a paper weight or a manhole cover, fine. We can then agree that it is the user that poses the problem.

In that case, when universal back ground checks are suggested, why are they dismissed out of hand? Because they are not 100% effective? Neither are speed limits, but certainly limiting speed saves lives.

Every suggestion to curb gun violence is rejected by gun lovers because 1) they are not the panacea to the problem or 2) they are regarded as an infringement of rights.

Unless some gun lover can offer a solution, we must them assume that death by gun shot, gun violence on our streets and mass shootings in our schools is just the price of "freedom" for a gun lover.

It is you who wish to curtail my rights. Why is it me who needs to come up with the solution?

Public health and safety? The safety of your children as the go to school or play? The safety of the innocents living adjacent to a drive by shooting?

Unless you don't think there is a problem with gun violence in this country. Do you?

If you do, don't you feel as if not suggesting a problem is tantamount to believing there is no problem?

 

[Anathema]

And in cases where previously law abiding citizens take a semi automatic to a school, I guess the resulting carnage is the price we must pay to do nothing to stop that act. I wonder why that previously law abiding citizen thought that a semi automatic was a wise choice to begin with?

And it serves as a convenient rationalization to claim that law abiding citizens are not the problem until indeed they are. Adam Lanza serves as a case in point, as does John Hinckley.

What you folks need to understand is a very basic principle.... There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING YOU CAN DO to stop the mass attacks. If Adam Lanza hadn't had access to his mother's (not his) firearms, he's have pulled a Timothy McVeigh and driven a truck full of gas and fertilizer into the front doors of that school, or something similar. Killers will ALWAYS find a way to kill. That's basic human psychology.

The term "semi-automatic firearm" covers a very large and incredibly broad swath of guns (pretty much everything other than revolvers, pump/lever action, and single shot guns). Since you apparently don't understand that, I'm going to guess that any attempt to actually explain to you what it means would be a massive waste of my time and energy.

Adam Lanza was not a legal gun owner. His mother was. Therefore any suggestion that Lanza is a case of "gun owner goes rogue" is incorrect. It IS a case of a gun owner failing to properly secure her firearms, but that's a different story.

 

[sameech]

If indeed guns are sweet benign objects no more harmful than a moving van packed with ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel or a paper weight or a manhole cover, fine. We can then agree that it is the user that poses the problem.

In that case, when universal back ground checks are suggested, why are they dismissed out of hand? Because they are not 100% effective? Neither are speed limits, but certainly limiting speed saves lives.

Every suggestion to curb gun violence is rejected by gun lovers because 1) they are not the panacea to the problem or 2) they are regarded as an infringement of rights.

Unless some gun lover can offer a solution, we must them assume that death by gun shot, gun violence on our streets and mass shootings in our schools is just the price of "freedom" for a gun lover.

No we just need to take them out of the mix and not give a hoot about their screams of oppression. I was practically born with a gun in my hand and have several. They are tools, not some great symbol of freedom, and the access to them by the masses does nothing to preserve or protect our nation. I am willing to compromise if for no other reason than to send the message to people to shape up. Universal background checks, magazine limits, registration of transfers are all fine with me. Personally, I think all handguns should be banned (and I have 4 of those as well)

 

[Anathema]

Unless some gun lover can offer a solution, we must them assume that death by gun shot, gun violence on our streets and mass shootings in our schools is just the price of "freedom" for a gun lover.

You folks won't like the realistic solution....

1. Enforce all existing gun laws. That includes the SENTENCING GUIDELINES for them, and ending the ability of DA's to plea bargain the gun charge away to get a guilty plea on a lesser charge.

2. No early release for ANYONE involved in a gun-related crime. Not on the gun charge or on whatever other crime they were charged with in that incident.

3. Institute a truly USEFUL NICS program. Require ALL mental health providers who accept any sort of Federal funding to provide the names and SSN's of all violent or potentially unstable individuals in their care. Require ALL Local, County, State and Federal Law Enforcement agencies and Courts to provide the data on all convicted felons and those with a drug/alcohol conviction in their Jurisdiction.

3. Institute a single, FEDERAL licensing guideline for all state's CCW. The license would be issued at the State level, as an attachment to the driver's license. At any time from age 18 on that an individual renews their driver's license they could opt OUT of their right to purchase, possess, or use firearms. There would also be a NICS check run on them by the DMV when the license is renewed. That check would not be allowed to take more than 90 seconds. So long as the check comes back APPROVED, the driver's license is issued with no disclaimer on it. If the individual has chosen to decline their RTKBA or the NICS check comes back DENIED, an "INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT HAVE FIREARMS APPROVAL" note would be printed on the face of the license.

4. At any time that a licensed individual becomes no longer legal to own, carry, or use a firearm, their current license would be revoked and a new one issued with the appropriate disclaimer. This new license would be delivered by the US Marshall Service to the individual within 72 hours of NICS becoming aware of the situation.

5. When a firearms purchase is made, the dealer will run the license electronically, similar to a credit card. NICS will have 90 seconds to confirm or deny the validity of the license. Failure to coimplete the verification in the time period is assumed to be approval. Records of checks would not be allowed to be kept.

 

[Nosmo King]

And in cases where previously law abiding citizens take a semi automatic to a school, I guess the resulting carnage is the price we must pay to do nothing to stop that act. I wonder why that previously law abiding citizen thought that a semi automatic was a wise choice to begin with?

And it serves as a convenient rationalization to claim that law abiding citizens are not the problem until indeed they are. Adam Lanza serves as a case in point, as does John Hinckley.

What you folks need to understand is a very basic principle.... There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING YOU CAN DO to stop the mass attacks. If Adam Lanza hadn't had access to his mother's (not his) firearms, he's have pulled a Timothy McVeigh and driven a truck full of gas and fertilizer into the front doors of that school, or something similar. Killers will ALWAYS find a way to kill. That's basic human psychology.

The term "semi-automatic firearm" covers a very large and incredibly broad swath of guns (pretty much everything other than revolvers, pump/lever action, and single shot guns). Since you apparently don't understand that, I'm going to guess that any attempt to actually explain to you what it means would be a massive waste of my time and energy.

Adam Lanza was not a legal gun owner. His mother was. Therefore any suggestion that Lanza is a case of "gun owner goes rogue" is incorrect. It IS a case of a gun owner failing to properly secure her firearms, but that's a different story.

On the other hand, you could have spared me the condescending attitude and taken for granted that I understand the terminology regarding semi automatic firing systems.

Adam Lanza had access to an AR-15. Why did his mother, or any other citizen NEED an AR 15? Was she a big hunter? If so, is the AR 15 a preferred weapon for hunting? Was she a paranoid survivalist afraid of the government, the media and her own shadow? Dis she NEED an AR 15 to assuage her fears? Is it reasonable for her to have owned such a gun?

Should there be requirements like an insurance rider, mandatory safety classes including the proper storage procedures when such a weapon is brought into a home?

Spare me. Such requirements are never met by the criminal class and such regulations only burden the 'law abiding' gun owner. But in this case, as with scores of others, such regulations could have prevented a massacre. But massacres are simply the price society must pay to placate the gun lobby and their acolytes.

 

[Anathema]

On the other hand, you could have spared me the condescending attitude and taken for granted that I understand the terminology regarding semi automatic firing systems.

Condescention is about the nicest thing I have for those who want to further restrict my access to firearms and other self-defense tools. Your commentary, at least the wording of it gave me little hope that you understood what you were talking about.

Adam Lanza had access to an AR-15. Why did his mother, or any other citizen NEED an AR 15? Was she a big hunter? If so, is the AR 15 a preferred weapon for hunting? Was she a paranoid survivalist afraid of the government, the media and her own shadow? Dis she NEED an AR 15 to assuage her fears? Is it reasonable for her to have owned such a gun?

Doesn't matter. The US Constitution does not require firearms owners to provide a REASON for owning a firearm. That's what so many of you miss. You need to prove we DON'T need a firearm, and that there is no legitimate use for it, not the other way around.

Should there be requirements like an insurance rider, mandatory safety classes including the proper storage procedures when such a weapon is brought into a home?

What would either of those pieces of paper done to stop Adam Lanza. Most states require a safety course which includes discussion of safe storage procedures. That doesn't mean the gun owner can't choose not to follow them. Funny thing about Laws..... they're very easy to break and get away with most of the time.

Spare me. Such requirements are never met by the criminal class and such regulations only burden the 'law abiding' gun owner. But in this case, as with scores of others, such regulations could have prevented a massacre. But massacres are simply the price society must pay to placate the gun lobby and their acolytes.

No regulation other than a total ban on the firearms would have stopped that shooting. Even then, as I noted all it would have meant is that Adam Lanza would have found a different tool to carry out his evil intents. Possibly, if not probably leading to even greater loss of life and damage to property.

No. Massacres are the price society must pay for people who don't want to actually suggest that some "people" are actually little more than rabid dogs and should have the same thing done with them that is done to the afforementioned animals.

 

[Nosmo King]

On the other hand, you could have spared me the condescending attitude and taken for granted that I understand the terminology regarding semi automatic firing systems.

Condescention is about the nicest thing I have for those who want to further restrict my access to firearms and other self-defense tools. Your commentary, at least the wording of it gave me little hope that you understood what you were talking about.

Adam Lanza had access to an AR-15. Why did his mother, or any other citizen NEED an AR 15? Was she a big hunter? If so, is the AR 15 a preferred weapon for hunting? Was she a paranoid survivalist afraid of the government, the media and her own shadow? Dis she NEED an AR 15 to assuage her fears? Is it reasonable for her to have owned such a gun?

Doesn't matter. The US Constitution does not require firearms owners to provide a REASON for owning a firearm. That's what so many of you miss. You need to prove we DON'T need a firearm, and that there is no legitimate use for it, not the other way around.

Should there be requirements like an insurance rider, mandatory safety classes including the proper storage procedures when such a weapon is brought into a home?

What would either of those pieces of paper done to stop Adam Lanza. Most states require a safety course which includes discussion of safe storage procedures. That doesn't mean the gun owner can't choose not to follow them. Funny thing about Laws..... they're very easy to break and get away with most of the time.

Spare me. Such requirements are never met by the criminal class and such regulations only burden the 'law abiding' gun owner. But in this case, as with scores of others, such regulations could have prevented a massacre. But massacres are simply the price society must pay to placate the gun lobby and their acolytes.

No regulation other than a total ban on the firearms would have stopped that shooting. Even then, as I noted all it would have meant is that Adam Lanza would have found a different tool to carry out his evil intents. Possibly, if not probably leading to even greater loss of life and damage to property.

No. Massacres are the price society must pay for people who don't want to actually suggest that some "people" are actually little more than rabid dogs and should have the same thing done with them that is done to the afforementioned animals.

What was the previous crimes committed by the shooters at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora Colorado? Your solution is a great reactive suggestion, but does nothing proactively to prevent massacres. They were all 'law abiding citizens' right up to the point they pulled the trigger.

 

[Anathema]

What was the previous crimes committed by the shooters at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora Colorado? Your solution is a great reactive suggestion, but does nothing proactively to prevent massacres. They were all 'law abiding citizens' right up to the point they pulled the trigger.

I've got a brilliant idea....

How about we actually start demanding parents be responsible for knowing who their children are and what the fuck they're doing (Columbine and Sandy Hook)?

How about we provide proper security (that means armed people who are trained and ready to KILL individuals who threaten bodily harm to others on the property) in places where individuals are denied their right to bear arms (VT, Columbine, Sandy Hook, & Aurora).

How about we get rid of the damn ridiculous restrictions on parents and guardians being able to FORCE unstable family members into in-patient mental health facilities until they can be fully diagnosed and their dangerousness determined (VT, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora).

Outside of that there is no way to proactively prevent these things from happening. We can only react to them. That's one of the down-sides to living in a nation where Freedom is an integral part of the society.

 

[Nosmo King]

What was the previous crimes committed by the shooters at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora Colorado? Your solution is a great reactive suggestion, but does nothing proactively to prevent massacres. They were all 'law abiding citizens' right up to the point they pulled the trigger.

I've got a brilliant idea....

How about we actually start demanding parents be responsible for knowing who their children are and what the fuck they're doing (Columbine and Sandy Hook)?

How about we provide proper security (that means armed people who are trained and ready to KILL individuals who threaten bodily harm to others on the property) in places where individuals are denied their right to bear arms (VT, Columbine, Sandy Hook, & Aurora).

How about we get rid of the damn ridiculous restrictions on parents and guardians being able to FORCE unstable family members into in-patient mental health facilities until they can be fully diagnosed and their dangerousness determined (VT, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora).

Outside of that there is no way to proactively prevent these things from happening. We can only react to them. That's one of the down-sides to living in a nation where Freedom is an integral part of the society.

Most of the shooters in the aforementioned massacres take themselves out. Arming a third grade teacher is not a very practical solution. There have been people shot a t and killed while surrounded by armed cadres. More guns mean more stray bullets which means more carnage and collateral damage. More guns is tantamount to filling fire extinguishers with gasoline.

Unless we can divine some practical use for weapons with semi automatic firing and reloading systems, we should exclude them from our society.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And in cases where previously law abiding citizens take a semi automatic to a school, I guess the resulting carnage is the price we must pay to do nothing to stop that act. I wonder why that previously law abiding citizen thought that a semi automatic was a wise choice to begin with?

And it serves as a convenient rationalization to claim that law abiding citizens are not the problem until indeed they are. Adam Lanza serves as a case in point, as does John Hinckley.

What you folks need to understand is a very basic principle.... There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING YOU CAN DO to stop the mass attacks. If Adam Lanza hadn't had access to his mother's (not his) firearms, he's have pulled a Timothy McVeigh and driven a truck full of gas and fertilizer into the front doors of that school, or something similar. Killers will ALWAYS find a way to kill. That's basic human psychology.

The term "semi-automatic firearm" covers a very large and incredibly broad swath of guns (pretty much everything other than revolvers, pump/lever action, and single shot guns). Since you apparently don't understand that, I'm going to guess that any attempt to actually explain to you what it means would be a massive waste of my time and energy.

Adam Lanza was not a legal gun owner. His mother was. Therefore any suggestion that Lanza is a case of "gun owner goes rogue" is incorrect. It IS a case of a gun owner failing to properly secure her firearms, but that's a different story.

On the other hand, you could have spared me the condescending attitude and taken for granted that I understand the terminology regarding semi automatic firing systems.

Adam Lanza had access to an AR-15. Why did his mother, or any other citizen NEED an AR 15? Was she a big hunter? If so, is the AR 15 a preferred weapon for hunting? Was she a paranoid survivalist afraid of the government, the media and her own shadow? Dis she NEED an AR 15 to assuage her fears? Is it reasonable for her to have owned such a gun?

Should there be requirements like an insurance rider, mandatory safety classes including the proper storage procedures when such a weapon is brought into a home?

Spare me. Such requirements are never met by the criminal class and such regulations only burden the 'law abiding' gun owner. But in this case, as with scores of others, such regulations could have prevented a massacre. But massacres are simply the price society must pay to placate the gun lobby and their acolytes.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with need. But to the point, the 2nd is designed to ensure that regular citizens can be formed into useful militias in time of need. Bringing with them their own weapons. That means as a matter of National survival that private citizens have access to weapons of USE. IN USE or usable by the military as has been codified by Supreme Court rulings.

So yes private citizens need access to AR-15's AK-47's and all the other semi automatic rifles out there. To include especially the so called ASSUALT RIFLE.

 

[PratchettFan]

Unless some gun lover can offer a solution, we must them assume that death by gun shot, gun violence on our streets and mass shootings in our schools is just the price of "freedom" for a gun lover.

You folks won't like the realistic solution....

1. Enforce all existing gun laws. That includes the SENTENCING GUIDELINES for them, and ending the ability of DA's to plea bargain the gun charge away to get a guilty plea on a lesser charge.

2. No early release for ANYONE involved in a gun-related crime. Not on the gun charge or on whatever other crime they were charged with in that incident.

3. Institute a truly USEFUL NICS program. Require ALL mental health providers who accept any sort of Federal funding to provide the names and SSN's of all violent or potentially unstable individuals in their care. Require ALL Local, County, State and Federal Law Enforcement agencies and Courts to provide the data on all convicted felons and those with a drug/alcohol conviction in their Jurisdiction.

3. Institute a single, FEDERAL licensing guideline for all state's CCW. The license would be issued at the State level, as an attachment to the driver's license. At any time from age 18 on that an individual renews their driver's license they could opt OUT of their right to purchase, possess, or use firearms. There would also be a NICS check run on them by the DMV when the license is renewed. That check would not be allowed to take more than 90 seconds. So long as the check comes back APPROVED, the driver's license is issued with no disclaimer on it. If the individual has chosen to decline their RTKBA or the NICS check comes back DENIED, an "INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT HAVE FIREARMS APPROVAL" note would be printed on the face of the license.

4. At any time that a licensed individual becomes no longer legal to own, carry, or use a firearm, their current license would be revoked and a new one issued with the appropriate disclaimer. This new license would be delivered by the US Marshall Service to the individual within 72 hours of NICS becoming aware of the situation.

5. When a firearms purchase is made, the dealer will run the license electronically, similar to a credit card. NICS will have 90 seconds to confirm or deny the validity of the license. Failure to coimplete the verification in the time period is assumed to be approval. Records of checks would not be allowed to be kept.

Same objection. It will not change the situation and will, imo, exacerbate it. I did a little number crunching and comparing the US and europe (including Canada) the average per capita prison population per 100,000 is 104 while the murder rate by gun is .27. For the US the prison population is 707 with a murder rate of 10.3.

Now, I am not saying prison causes gun violence, though I would not be surprised there is a direct connection, but it is obvious that it in no way reduces it. Putting people into cages does not make them any less prone towards violence nor does it improve their potential for getting out of a lifestyle in which violence is prevelant. Quite the opposite. I am against using my tax dollars just to make the problem worse.

 

[Anathema]

Most of the shooters in the aforementioned massacres take themselves out. Arming a third grade teacher is not a very practical solution. There have been people shot a t and killed while surrounded by armed cadres. More guns mean more stray bullets which means more carnage and collateral damage. More guns is tantamount to filling fire extinguishers with gasoline.

Most of them do take themselves out when confronted with potential reactive from from the other side. You might want to tell the Israeli's how impractical that "armed teacher" solution is, since they've used it with a 100% success rate for something on the order of 40 years after the ONLY school-related massacre in the country's history. The idea isn't only to be able to fight back, but to disuade the armed individual from choosing a school as a target in the first place. More guns does not necessarily mean more stray bullets. Not if people are properly trained.

Unless we can divine some practical use for weapons with semi automatic firing and reloading systems, we should exclude them from our society.

The CONSTITUTIONAL use for semi-automatic firearms is very simple..... Whatever the hell the law-abiding citizen wants to use them for. Just like the CONSTITUTIONAL use for any other firearm or defensive tool (pepper spray, knife, kubaton, steel baton, etc.....)

 

[Anathema]

Now, I am not saying prison causes gun violence, though I would not be surprised there is a direct connection, but it is obvious that it in no way reduces it. Putting people into cages does not make them any less prone towards violence nor does it improve their potential for getting out of a lifestyle in which violence is prevelant. Quite the opposite. I am against using my tax dollars just to make the problem worse.

You mistake me for someone who thinks that we should let the vast majority of those people out of their cages before they are corpses.

 

[Nosmo King]

Most of the shooters in the aforementioned massacres take themselves out. Arming a third grade teacher is not a very practical solution. There have been people shot a t and killed while surrounded by armed cadres. More guns mean more stray bullets which means more carnage and collateral damage. More guns is tantamount to filling fire extinguishers with gasoline.

Most of them do take themselves out when confronted with potential reactive from from the other side. You might want to tell the Israeli's how impractical that "armed teacher" solution is, since they've used it with a 100% success rate for something on the order of 40 years after the ONLY school-related massacre in the country's history. The idea isn't only to be able to fight back, but to disuade the armed individual from choosing a school as a target in the first place. More guns does not necessarily mean more stray bullets. Not if people are properly trained.

Unless we can divine some practical use for weapons with semi automatic firing and reloading systems, we should exclude them from our society.

The CONSTITUTIONAL use for semi-automatic firearms is very simple..... Whatever the hell the law-abiding citizen wants to use them for. Just like the CONSTITUTIONAL use for any other firearm or defensive tool (pepper spray, knife, kubaton, steel baton, etc.....)

I won't feel safe until I have a thermo-nuclear device in my basement to dissuade the bad guy with a thermo-nuclear device from breaking into my house.

Where does this arms race conclude?

In March of 1981, four people were shot and grievously wounded on a Washington D.C. street. They were all surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in human history. In fact, two of the wounded were armed themselves. With all those guns present, John Hinckley still managed to shoot four individuals. I wonder if the third grade teacher at Sandy Hook could have fared better than the United States Secret Service?

 

[PratchettFan]

Now, I am not saying prison causes gun violence, though I would not be surprised there is a direct connection, but it is obvious that it in no way reduces it. Putting people into cages does not make them any less prone towards violence nor does it improve their potential for getting out of a lifestyle in which violence is prevelant. Quite the opposite. I am against using my tax dollars just to make the problem worse.

You mistake me for someone who thinks that we should let the vast majority of those people out of their cages before they are corpses.

Won't make the problem better, will vastly increase the cost of both prisons and the legal system, and would be considered unconstitutional. A really bad idea.

 

[Anathema]

I won't feel safe until I have a thermo-nuclear device in my basement to dissuade the bad guy with a thermo-nuclear device from breaking into my house.

So long as you can prove that you have the means to properly and safely store the device, so be it.

In March of 1981, four people were shot and grievously wounded on a Washington D.C. street. They were all surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in human history. In fact, two of the wounded were armed themselves. With all those guns present, John Hinckley still managed to shoot four individuals. I wonder if the third grade teacher at Sandy Hook could have fared better than the United States Secret Service?

In March of 1981 the Secret Service had become lax and complacent. They've admitted this. The attempted assassination of President Reagan began a total review andchange in the way the POTUS is protected. Trust me, if it were still that easy to get to a POTUS, the current one would not likely still be alive.

Personally, my preference isn't to arm the teachers, but to provide proper security personnel in all public buildings where CCW is precluded by law or policy. Great opportunity for those returning US Military personnel.

Won't make the problem better, will vastly increase the cost of both prisons and the legal system, and would be considered unconstitutional. A really bad idea.

Not really.... Violent felons and those convicted of moral crimes, executed 4 hours after their one appeal is turned down. Non-violent felons spend the rest of their life in prison. Individuals convicted of misdemeanors spend not less than 5 years nor more than 10. Second offense treated like a felony of the same type (violent or non-violent). That would clean up the system very quickly.

 

[Nosmo King]

I won't feel safe until I have a thermo-nuclear device in my basement to dissuade the bad guy with a thermo-nuclear device from breaking into my house.

So long as you can prove that you have the means to properly and safely store the device, so be it.

In March of 1981, four people were shot and grievously wounded on a Washington D.C. street. They were all surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in human history. In fact, two of the wounded were armed themselves. With all those guns present, John Hinckley still managed to shoot four individuals. I wonder if the third grade teacher at Sandy Hook could have fared better than the United States Secret Service?

In March of 1981 the Secret Service had become lax and complacent. They've admitted this. The attempted assassination of President Reagan began a total review andchange in the way the POTUS is protected. Trust me, if it were still that easy to get to a POTUS, the current one would not likely still be alive.

Personally, my preference isn't to arm the teachers, but to provide proper security personnel in all public buildings where CCW is precluded by law or policy. Great opportunity for those returning US Military personnel.

Won't make the problem better, will vastly increase the cost of both prisons and the legal system, and would be considered unconstitutional. A really bad idea.

Not really.... Violent felons and those convicted of moral crimes, executed 4 hours after their one appeal is turned down. Non-violent felons spend the rest of their life in prison. Individuals convicted of misdemeanors spend not less than 5 years nor more than 10. Second offense treated like a felony of the same type (violent or non-violent). That would clean up the system very quickly.

Who's paying for a security force better than the Secret Service? Schools are forced to drop educational programs due to draconian budget cuts. Where's the cash for Rambo?

 

[Anathema]

Who's paying for a security force better than the Secret Service? Schools are forced to drop educational programs due to draconian budget cuts. Where's the cash for Rambo?

The cash is coming from cutting the things that don't belong in schools..... Gym, art, music, interscholastic sports, clubs, etc.... and returning schools to what they should be about.... BASIC SKILLS and nothing more.

I'm not talking about "a security force better than the Secret Service". I'm simply talking about ensuring the safety of the students and faculty who are not allowed any opportunity to defend themselves.